About this episode
Today's daf is dedicated in memory of three IDF soldiers who fell in Gaza: Nevo Fisher, Matityahu Ya'akov Perel, and Kanaoo Kasa. Nevo was a friend of my daughter. Rabbi Meir and the rabbis disagree about the selection process for three judges in monetary law cases. According to Rabbi Meir, each litigant selects one judge, and then both litigants together choose the third judge. The rabbis, however, maintain that after the initial two judges are chosen, these judges themselves select the third. It remains unclear if this Mishna specifically addresses an alternative arbitration court. A second point of disagreement concerns whether one party can disqualify the other party's judges or witnesses without valid cause. The Gemara initially struggles with interpreting the selection method. They think that when the Mishna says each side chooses "one," it means one complete court, which would result in nine judges! To resolve this confusion, they initially propose that the Mishna only applies to cases where neither side accepts the other's court. This interpretation is ultimately rejected. Instead, the Mishna is understood to present an ideal system for selecting judges: each side chooses one judge, and then the third judge is chosen jointly - either by the two litigants (according to Rabbi Meir) or by the two selected judges (according to the rabbis). This creates a balanced court. What is the source of the debate between them? The Gemara then addresses a difficulty in Rabbi Meir's position: how can he allow either side to disqualify judges? The only reasonable interpretation is that disqualification is only permitted when the judges lack expertise. But this raises another question: how can Rabbi Meir permit the disqualification of two witnesses, given that the strength of witnesses in two is equal to the strength of judges in expert judges? Reish Lakish resolves this by explaining that the Mishna actually refers to disqualifying only one witness. Though this answer faces some challenges, the Gemara presents two additional explanations each playing off a case where one litigant brings another and the two testify against the other litigant's two witnesses.